Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-19 05:25 UTC

rudi193-cmd / willow-mcp

Agent-neutral MCP server with persistent memory (SOIL + Postgres KB) and a sandboxed task queue. Manifest-based ACL; works with any stdio MCP client.

PythonApache-2.0★ 2 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryMCP serverCommand-line toolNetwork servicehow this is determined
#agent#authorization#knowledge-base#mcp#mcp-server#postgres#python#task-queue

rudi193-cmd/willow-mcp holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (36/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
overall / 100
Good

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

77
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Sean CampbellPersonal account
86 followers76 public repossince Oct 2025

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIwillow-mcp2.12.0-310 days agoknowledge-basemcpoauthtask-queuewillow

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

71Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 875 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year875
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 29 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count29
latest_release_tagv2.13.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases0.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

36Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars2
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

77Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

59Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

23At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 63% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.628

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent
How it's scored
40.4/42Issue resolution — 96% of issues closed
29.8/30PR acceptance — 304/306 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs304
open_issues2
closed_issues49
prs_merged_7d11
prs_decided_7d11
prs_merged_30d57
prs_decided_30d57
issue_closed_ratio0.961
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

48Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.9/25Owner reach — 86 followers of rudi193-cmd
14.7/25Track record — 76 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers86
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginrudi193-cmd
public_repos76
account_age_days314
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 31 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswillow-mcp
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/rudi193-cmd/willow-2.0
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsagent, authorization, knowledge-base, mcp, mcp-server, postgres, python, task-queue
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://github.com/rudi193-cmd/willow-2.0
docs_sitehttps://github.com/rudi193-cmd/willow-2.0
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

51Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

51Moderate
How it's scored
5.2/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

66Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — docs/AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 82 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.911
agent_instruction_filesdocs/AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6,957

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

58Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 34 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.34
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 2/367 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes343,891
source_files_sampled367
oversized_source_files2

Machine-readable interfaces

60Moderate
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

2GitHub stars
2contributors
875commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
29releases
1bus factor
2open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:willow-mcp@2.12.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-08-19 05:25 UTC

7Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
1Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPImcp>=2.0.0,<3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpsycopg2-binary>=2.9,<3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIcryptography>=42.0,<51.0pyproject.toml
PyPIstarlette>=1.3.1,<2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIuvicorn>=0.29,<1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIkartikeya>=0.0.9,<1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIjeles>=0.5.1,<1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.31,<3.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with rudi193-cmd/willow-mcp. Read them side by side →

99ag2ai/ag2AG2 (formerly AutoGen): The Open-Source AgentOS.Join us at: https://discord.gg/sNGSwQME3xExceptional98modelcontextprotocol/python-sdkThe official Python SDK for Model Context Protocol servers and clientsExceptional100deepset-ai/haystackOpen-source AI orchestration framework for building context-engineered, production-ready LLM applications. Design modular pipelines and agent workflows with explicit control over retrieval, routing, memory, and generation. Built for scalable agents, RAG, multimodal applications, semantic search, and conversational systems.Exceptional99awslabs/mcpOpen source MCP Servers for AWSExceptional99IBM/mcp-context-forgeAn AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.Exceptional98open-metadata/OpenMetadataThe Open Context Layer for Data and AI , OpenMetadata is the open platform for building trusted data context and business semantics for humans, AI assistants, and agents.Exceptional

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.